Well, if you choose to be close minded, then I agree, it's indeed your choice.

Cheers.

The sexual acts of a homosexual couple are against my religion just as the sexual acts of a non-married heterosexual couple are, yet I don't believe in judging either of them. I'll leave that up to God and He'll judge as He sees fit, just as he'll judge me, you and every other sinner on earth.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

You have a good point. If we lived in The Peoples' Theocracy of America, I would even agree with you.

Since we live in a representative, secular democracy; it is merely my untyrannical minority opinion, that we should be able to vote on our public ethics, at the local level; especially, if not denied or disparaged by our social contract.

OK ... Give me an example, then. That is to say, give me an example of a public ethic which you'd like to vote on, and your opinion.

I still think my point is applicable even though we're not living in the PTA(). but, I'd like to see your example too, if you don't mind - this could be interesting.

A simple example of a majority of the populace of a given municipality, would be to vote on whether or not women should be allowed to go topless on public beaches. It should not be up to a minority on a municipal council to decide that public ethos.

From a certain perspective, it might be even more ethical, for only women to vote on whether or not they should allow themselves to go topless on public beaches.

Me neither, I would be visible offensive. ---- Now if I were still 21......"

It has been said "My rights end where your nose begins"

Agreed, and sometimes I think some things should be legal, even if they're not right now. E.g. smoking pot. And seriously, if a 20 year old is at a buddy's house and has a beer, is that really so bad?
Or Mob rule?
Is interracial marriage against your religion too?



As for the topless women, can we vote for that on a case-by-case basis?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

You would not be required to look at public nudity? What if we had no 1A, and someone took offense at hearing false witness bearing in public?

We still have a social contract that specifies the powers of the various governments. I only advocate direct representation in public ethics and public morals.

I am not sure we would be able to bypass the 14A, on the public act of voting for our public ethics.

Indeed! Those were the days, weren't they?

Okay, I'm assuming your talking about the US here, and not the French Riveria.

Well, this wouldn't work in the US (IMHO), and again because this would inevitably become a social issue - intertwined with religion (religous beliefs would likely influence the social standard, which in turn would determine what was moral and what wasn't).

If a minority decided what was to be done on this one, then I would say yes, everyone should be voting on it, but IMHO, these type of standards are actually set by the majority ... sort of an unwritten consensus which defines a standard.

On the other hand, is it ethical for women to decide this themselves? As far as the ladies go, probably yes - it's their cleavage. But, what effect would this have on the rest of the public, how would they feel about it? Doniston and Gem have summed that one up nicely in their respective posts.

So, a catch 22 IMO, but the currently exisiting system wins out.

That being said, I have no problem with topless women. I rather wish it was encouraged more.

Nice points you bring up!!

There's no law that requires open mindedness. If he (or she) wishes to shun homosexuals it's really nobody else's business. I personally shun racists, homophobes, eagles fans, and people who listen to Barry Manilow. It may not be open minded of me but it's my right.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Why should a majority of people who do not live in that municipality, decide what the local populace of that municipality consider socially acceptable?

This brings up another point, why should the religious have any problems with that form democracy, if they are not being required to participate? Any person whose morals conflict with that type of policy should not be required to conform to that local ethos (from the 1A).

I do not think this is the case. I feel that the local populace of that municipality has a big say in this as things stand.

Flying the rebel flag is legal in both the North and the South. Is it more "acceptable" in the South than the North? I would say yes. And why? Because Southerners (local populace) feel that it is socially acceptabe - since they say it is part of their culture.

Not sure what you are referring to on this one - please reword. Thanks.

Well, without meaning to sound like a communist, I'd say some sacrifices have to be made by everyone for the common good.

If this wasn't done, we'd all be running around deciding what's right/wrong, acceptable/non-acceptable, and society would be in a state of chaos.

For instance, I could argue I prefer that women go topless and that I should not be required to conform to the ethos that women do not go topless generally - however, that doesn't mean society has to change this particular law to suit me.